[Ailist] PsyBlog: Do You Believe in Free Will?

[Stephanie West Allen]

The way we see the brain seems to be getting some shocks to it  
recently. A couple of clues . . .

Another shock for brain imaging research - the signal isn't always  
linked to neuronal activity

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-shock-for- 
brain-imaging.html

Stephanie

On Jan 23, 2009, at 8:35 PM, kgergen1 wrote:

> From a constructionist standpoint, you can also see that all forms  
> of opposition are what you might call rhetorical or literary  
> devices. The rhetoric of opposites doesn't reflect the world so  
> much as create what we take to be the world. Thus, we are free to  
> jettison the traditional determinism/voluntarism opposition, and to  
> ask if there are other, more useful (given our values) ways to  
> construct the brain, and what we take to be free choice. Whether  
> the construction of a "higher level" serves this purpose seems an  
> open question. Ken
>
> On Jan 23, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Stephanie West Allen wrote:
>
>> If we are in our reflective mind, we have free will. If we are in  
>> our reactive brain, we likely don't, except that most of us can  
>> choose to move into the reflective mind.  The free will/free won't  
>> debate as seen through the neuroscience lens is laid out quite  
>> well in THE MIND AND THE BRAIN by Schwartz and Begley. As you  
>> probably know this is a topic of much disagreement among the  
>> neuroscientists.
>>
>> Sounds like a good book, Bruce.
>>
>> Stephanie
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2009, at 4:39 PM, Bruce Elkin wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/01/do-you-believe-in-free-will.php
>>>
>>> Interesting article, Stephanie. I like the “compatabilism”  
>>> approach, toward the end.
>>>
>>> But the underlying question poses a false dichotomy, what EF  
>>> Schumacher called a “divergent challenge.”
>>> The more you frame the question and try to solve it, the more the  
>>> “solutions” diverge from each other. Ultimately you end up with  
>>> polar opposites, such as free will vs. determinism.
>>>
>>> Schumacher said that you have to transcend the question by going  
>>> to a higher level value.  He gave the example of the French  
>>> revolutionary slogan, “Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité” as an  
>>> example. If you have unlimited freedom, society won’t be very  
>>> equal. To get it completely equal, you have to regulate freedom  
>>> too much. So the French went to the higher order value of  
>>> compassion (brotherlineness/ fraternite), to help reconcile the  
>>> dichotomy between freedom and equality.
>>>
>>> In my new (soon to be finished) ebook Staying Up In Down Times:  
>>> Resilience, Results, and Rewards, I discuss this issue and  
>>> Schumacher’s approach to it.  In it, I say:
>>>
>>>> Schumacher’s pairs of opposites “cease to be opposites,” he  
>>>> says, “at the higher level, the really human level, where self- 
>>>> awareness plays its proper role.” At the level of the whole  
>>>> person, higher, more senior forces such as love, compassion,  
>>>> truth, understanding, and creativity enable us to embrace and  
>>>> transcend these polar opposites.
>>>
>>> As usual, I’m trying to make a case for a shift from a  
>>> predominantly “problem” focused approach to the higher-level  
>>> “creating” approach (which I suggest is very compatible with the  
>>> AI approach).  I add:
>>>
>>>> Creating is more powerful—and simpler—than problem solving  
>>>> because it mobilizes such forces as caring, and love. Working  
>>>> within creative tension, we can transcend problems, and create  
>>>> what truly matters to us.
>>>>
>>>> The Urge to Create
>>>> The great psychologist Carl Jung recognized the wisdom in  
>>>> transcending divergent challenges when he said that life’s messy  
>>>> problems are not solved, only outgrown. As we saw earlier, they  
>>>> fade away when confronted with a new and stronger life urge such  
>>>> as the urge to create.
>>>>
>>>> Creating is driven by the power of love—the desire to bring an  
>>>> envisioned result into being. It is rooted in the truth the  
>>>> current state of the result. It expresses our creative spirit  
>>>> through choices and action. It is the place, where the hands,  
>>>> the head, and the heart come together.
>>>
>>> So, to come back to the free will vs. determinism dichotomy, I  
>>> think it, too, can be transcended by creating.
>>> Our choices are not merely determined, only partially. Much  
>>> choice is freely chosen, in support of higher order values and  
>>> visions. It’s not so much a “both/and” balance, but more a  
>>> hierarchy of choice in which we acknowledge the degree to which  
>>> our past and our biology determine us, and we transcend that  
>>> determinism through higher order choices and actions in support  
>>> of what we want to create.
>>>
>>> Of course, unless we understand and master the “creating”  
>>> approach and it’s structure, we’re doomed (determined) to flail  
>>> away at things with our problem solving hammers.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Bruce
>>> ******************************************************************** 
>>> *
>>> BRUCE ELKIN: Helping You Create What Matters Most!
>>> 20+ Years   -   Clients on 6 Continents   -   Author of 3 Books &
>>>   The Forthcoming Simplicity, Success & Sustainability
>>>
>>>     Tell me, what will you do
>>>                with your one wild and precious life?
>>>                                                    - Mary Oliver
>>> Get My Fr.ee e-Newsletter at
>>>      http://www.bruceelkin.com/newsletter.html
>>> Phone: 250.388.7210  Web: http://www.BruceElkin.com
>>> Blog: http://createwhatmattersmost.blogspot.com
>>> *******************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David  
>> Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain  
>> is the list administrator. For subscription information, go to:
>> http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist
>